Man tries to rob woman in wheel chair

  • Thread starter Thread starter scott1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wheel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around an incident where a woman in a wheelchair shot a mugger attempting to steal her necklace. Participants explore themes of self-defense, the appropriateness of using lethal force in such situations, and the implications of the law regarding self-defense. The conversation touches on various perspectives regarding the moral and legal aspects of the woman's actions, as well as broader societal issues related to crime and personal safety.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express support for the woman's actions, viewing her as justified in defending herself against a mugger.
  • Others question the necessity of using a firearm for what they perceive as a non-lethal crime, suggesting that threatening the mugger might have sufficed.
  • A few participants argue that the use of lethal force should be reserved for situations where there is a clear and immediate threat to life.
  • There is discussion about the legal definitions of self-defense, with some participants noting that one must demonstrate reasonable belief of imminent harm to justify lethal force.
  • Some participants highlight the complexities of self-defense laws, suggesting that the woman may have acted inappropriately by shooting without attempting to de-escalate the situation first.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of using firearms in self-defense, including the potential for legal repercussions and the moral considerations of shooting to kill versus shooting to incapacitate.
  • Participants also bring up hypothetical scenarios regarding the severity of threats, such as potential rape, and whether those would justify lethal force.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the woman's actions or the legal implications of her use of force. Multiple competing views remain regarding the justification of lethal self-defense and the nuances of legal definitions surrounding such situations.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about self-defense laws, the nature of threats, and the responsibilities of individuals in dangerous situations. There are unresolved questions about the adequacy of the woman's response and the legal standards for justifying the use of lethal force.

scott1
Messages
350
Reaction score
1
NEW YORK -- Margaret Johnson's wheelchair might have made her look like an easy target. But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WHEELCHAIR_SHOOTER?SITE=CAANG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
It's terrible and sad how people take advantage of helpless handicap people:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Good for her!
 
WTG Ms, Johnson!
 
It's a good thing that she was going to the range to practice if she only managed to get him in the elbow from that distance. :rolleyes:
 
Danger said:
It's a good thing that she was going to the range to practice if she only managed to get him in the elbow from that distance. :rolleyes:

I don't think her intentions were to severely harm someone who is only stealing a necklace.

Some people go overboard when it comes to self-defence and end up getting charged themselves. Anyways, she did what she had to do.
 
I don't know if I would shoot somebody from trying to take my necklace. Then again, you don't know what they are going to do. HEADSHOT! :devil:
 
Mk said:
I don't know if I would shoot somebody from trying to take my necklace.

Some people think when they are getting attacked that they have a self-defense door open and can do whatever it takes to stop the person. In reality, you can't do whatever it takes. It has to be reasonable.

For someone who is not on a wheelchair, shooting a gun like the lady would have led to charges.
 
Couldn't she have just as easily threatened him with it instead of actually shooting? I agree it seems overboard.
 
JasonRox said:
I don't think her intentions were to severely harm someone who is only stealing a necklace.

The first rule of firearm defense is that you never pull a gun on someone unless you fully intend to use it.

Second rule: If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

In Oregon, we don't need guns.

PORTLAND, Ore. - A nurse returning from work discovered an intruder armed with a hammer in her home and strangled him with her bare hands, police said.

Susan Kuhnhausen, 51, then ran to a neighbor's house Wednesday night to report the intruder, identified as Edward Dalton Haffey, 59, whose body was found by police.[continued]
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=88966

In our case, Tsu is heavily armed. She doesn't like messing up her nails with all of that messy strangling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
I love Oregon women! They're like Texans!
 
  • #11
Neighbors said Kuhnhausen's size - 5 foot 7 inches tall and 260 pounds - may have given her an advantage.

She probably ran him over and then jumped on him, which was probably the true cause of death... then later strangled him.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
JasonRox said:
Yeah those big old Oregons.

So you are saying that all Oregon and Texas women are fat?
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
So you are saying that all Oregon and Texas women are fat?

It was only relating to the article.
 
  • #14
The point was that your comments were in poor taste. :biggrin:

No doubt, at 260 she had a slight advantage.
 
  • #15
Ivan Seeking said:
The point was that your comments were in poor taste. :biggrin:

No doubt, at 260 she had a slight advantage.

Maybe I should take that comment out to avoid any further confusion.
 
  • #16
Just shows the sad state of health care in this country. Some poor guy is reduced to robbing women in his wheel chair. Reminds me of the time I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
 
  • #17
If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.
I am not much of a pacifist, but I am pretty against that. Shoot them in the leg or the arm, and hope you miss any arteries, when violent crime is intended (not by you).
 
  • #18
Any city newspaper~ Police fired 83 rounds, suspect was treated for smoke inhalation and a punctured eardrum.

Don't ask police to be marksmen.

You don't shoot someone unless a life is in danger and if a life is in danger you shoot to end that danger as fast and as surely as possible.
 
  • #19
Which is neutrilizing the threat by shooting out their legs, and perhaps arms.
 
  • #20
Mk said:
Which is neutrilizing the threat by shooting out their legs, and perhaps arms.
In the legs there are some major artires so you don't want to shot them in the legs.
 
  • #21
scott1 said:
In the legs there are some major artires so you don't want to shot them in the legs.

That's what I was thinking.

I think police officers are trained to go for the shoulders, and/or simply the body because aiming a handgun in action isn't probably the easiest thing.

Note: Most of us have never shot a handgun in action, so we can't compare it to a shooting range.
 
  • #22
What if he had tried to rape the woman or kill her? Would it have been OK for her to shoot to kill in one of those cases?
 
  • #23
Math Is Hard said:
What if he had tried to rape the woman or kill her? Would it have been OK for her to shoot to kill in one of those cases?

Probably not.

That's not self-defense.

Self-defense: It is generally a legal defense to a charge of homicide, assault, or battery to show that you had reason to believe that you were about to become the victim of serious bodily harm. However, you must simultaneously prove that you tried every other reasonable way of avoiding the situation. This includes running away and calling 911. You also lose this right to self-defense if you started the fight, chose to engage in mutual combat, or committed the defense solely in the protection of property. Errors in judgment don't count, either. So if you get into a fight on behalf of someone else, and that person is later found to have been the legal aggressor, then you become the aggressor's accomplice, and risk conviction for assault, battery, or manslaughter, as appropriate.

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_svinth5_1199.htm

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

So, shooting and killing a potential rapists wouldn't be considered reasonable to stop him. A shot in the shoulder or two could be enough and maybe even less depending on the size and strength of the person. You probably don't even have to shoot because having the weapon alone might stop them.

But then, you have to prove that you had the reason to believe he/she was going to rape you. It's hard to prove if the person has no background of sexual violation and showed no intent in doing so. Just because someone confronts you in your home, this doesn't make it enough to assume it's going to be rape. It's all in your head at that point. Just like the first quote says...

Errors in judgment don't count, either.

For the lady in Oregon, I say that the man had absolutely no intent to rape her. Definitely not after seeing her.

Self-defense isn't completely disabling the person, but only enough to stop the situation and get yourself in a safe position basically. Now, thinking about this, the lady in the wheel chair should have been charged from the information we got. She made no attempt to threaten him with a gun, but simply just shot the gun right away. According to the above, she should have tried that option first.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
JasonRox said:
Probably not.

That's not self-defense.
So, shooting and killing a potential rapists wouldn't be considered reasonable to stop him. A shot in the shoulder or two could be enough and maybe even less depending on the size and strength of the person. You probably don't even have to shoot because having the weapon alone might stop them.
If you've got no chance at running away, if you are in a wheelchair, how many alternatives do you have?
For the lady in Oregon, I say that the man had absolutely no intent to rape her. Definitely not after seeing her.
This demonstrates how little you know about the real world. You think that rape has something to do with physical attractiveness. Elderly women get raped. Little children get raped. And yes, even obese women get raped.
Self-defense isn't completely disabling the person, but only enough to stop the situation and get yourself in a safe position basically. Now, thinking about this, the lady in the wheel chair should have been charged from the information we got. She made no attempt to threaten him with a gun, but simply just shot the gun right away. According to the above, she should have tried that option first.
She was never in a safe position. She's lucky that wounding him didn't just make him mad enough to come back at her. Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead.
 
  • #25
scott1 said:
In the legs there are some major artires so you don't want to shot them in the legs.
I already mentioned
Shoot them in the leg or the arm, and hope you miss any arteries
But I bet they have a better chance of living than if you hit the head or torso. Stomach region would break open the intestine, which also quickly causes death.

For the lady in Oregon, I say that the man had absolutely no intent to rape her. Definitely not after seeing her.
Although it was perhaps a joke, rape I read is about power, not the want for sex with a particular women. If you want to have sex with somebody, it is no good unless she wants it or likes it to, c'mon!
 
  • #26
Math Is Hard said:
If you've got no chance at running away, if you are in a wheelchair, how many alternatives do you have?

Whatever alternatives you have, you must take them.

Math Is Hard said:
This demonstrates how little you know about the real world. You think that rape has something to do with physical attractiveness. Elderly women get raped. Little children get raped. And yes, even obese women get raped.

Humour?

Math Is Hard said:
She was never in a safe position. She's lucky that wounding him didn't just make him mad enough to come back at her. Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead.

How do you know she never was in a safe position? If you have a gun pointed directly at someone, that would be quite a safe position.

Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead?

WHOA! That attitude is worse than the attitude the criminal is carrying. He just wanted money or something with probably no intent to physically injure someone or KILL someone. Yet, you come around saying killing is the only solution? What if this person is just stressed out from family problems and is looking for money? Whatever the reason is... people make mistakes. People can change. Why take that opportunity away by shooting them dead over minor theft charges? You take someone's life away for something that small? Not many people would be alive today with that attitude.

I don't know, but shooting for the intent to kill over minor theft charges is just outrageous.

So far, if you were the lady in the wheelchair, after shooting him in the elbow, disabling him, and having a safe position on him (gun pointed right at him), you would have shot him directly in the head or heart to kill him because YOU feared he might come back at you? That's murder. 25 years. Ouch.

Edit: For the lady in the wheelchair's defence, she probably did not have the opportunity to have him in a safe position (gun pointing) so she did the next thing, which was shoot him. I'm not surprised she didn't get charged. No one got seriously injured. Shooting him in the head afterwards... well...
 
Last edited:
  • #27
This story sounds like one out of the wild-west, people pulling out guns and shooting around. I guess there were no people around when that happened? What if she had missed his elbow and hit an innocent by-stander?
 
  • #28
Shoot them in the leg or the arm, and hope you miss any arteries
There's a good chance if you shoot in the legs it will hit the arteries.
 
  • #29
I think people who suggest guns should be used for disabling people by shooting their arms, legs, feet, or cigarettes out of their mouths watch too much tv. Police are trained to go for centre of mass. A gun *is* deadly force, the goal is to stop the agressor and centre of mass is surest way to achieve this. You don't aim for winging someone when you feel your life (or someone elses) is threatened.
 
  • #30
JasonRox said:
How do you know she never was in a safe position? If you have a gun pointed directly at someone, that would be quite a safe position.
Only if you've got faster reflexes and the attacker can't get the gun away from you.
Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead?

WHOA! That attitude is worse than the attitude the criminal is carrying. He just wanted money or something with probably no intent to physically injure someone or KILL someone. Yet, you come around saying killing is the only solution? What if this person is just stressed out from family problems and is looking for money?
Not the victim's problem.
Whatever the reason is... people make mistakes. People can change.
They change really fast when you put a bullet in them.
Why take that opportunity away by shooting them dead over minor theft charges? You take someone's life away for something that small? Not many people would be alive today with that attitude.
Not many criminals anyway.
I don't know, but shooting for the intent to kill over minor theft charges is just outrageous.
Fair enough. We'll require all victims of violent crimes to inquire of the predator if they are only seeking to take our valuables or if they intend to do us bodily harm. Somewhat problematic if someone is pulling a necklace off your neck and you're choking at the time but perhaps sign language could be adopted.
So far, if you were the lady in the wheelchair, after shooting him in the elbow, disabling him, and having a safe position on him (gun pointed right at him), you would have shot him directly in the head or heart to kill him because YOU feared he might come back at you? That's murder. 25 years. Ouch.
Not if I am on the jury.
Edit: For the lady in the wheelchair's defence, she probably did not have the opportunity to have him in a safe position (gun pointing) so she did the next thing, which was shoot him. I'm not surprised she didn't get charged. No one got seriously injured. Shooting him in the head afterwards... well...
I realize my views on this are extreme but I find it very upsetting when people prey on the "defenseless", no matter what their reasons. And I agree with Monique that it was probably too risky a move if there were any innocent bystanders in sight.